The Leadership Quarterly: Angela Shin-Yih Chen, Yu-Hsiang Hou

LEAQUA-01098; No of Pages 13
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for

innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation examination
Angela Shin-Yih Chen a, Yu-Hsiang Hou b,
a
b
Dept. of Business Administration, National Taipei University, No. 151, University Road, San Shia District, New Taipei City 23741, Taiwan
Dept. of Business Administration, National Chung Hsing University, 250 Kuo Kuang Road, Taichung City 402, Taiwan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 12 August 2014
Received in revised form 25 October 2015
Accepted 26 October 2015
Available online xxxx
Handling Editor: William Gardner
Keywords:
Ethical leadership
Voice behavior
Climate for innovation
Creativity
Moderated mediation
a b s t r a c t
The study of ethical leadership has emerged as an important topic in relation to understanding
the effects of leadership within organizations. We propose that the voice behavior of
employees serves as a mechanism reecting how ethical leadership affects individual
creativity. We develop a moderated-mediation model of the psychological processes
linking perceptions of ethical leadership and creativity. We further argue that these relationships are moderated by a climate for innovation. Using three-phase multilevel data
from multiple sources, we collected data from 291 employees and 58 workgroups from
R&D institutions in Taiwan. The HLM results suggest that (1) there is a positive relationship
between employee perceptions of ethical leadership and employees' voice behavior,
(2) voice behavior is positively related to individual creativity, and (3) the indirect effect
of ethical leadership on individual creativity (via voice behavior) is stronger when the
employee works in a more innovative climate. The theoretical and practical implications
of these ndings are also discussed.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Corporate social responsibility and enterprise ethics have become increasingly crucial issues; it is thought that leaders must
exhibit ethical behavior in order to set high moral standards and foster followers' ethical conduct (Tu & Lu, 2013). The growing
research on ethical leadership describes ethical leadership as a general leadership process that transfers ethical leader behavior to
followers' behavior through the general mechanisms of social learning, exchange and identity (Trevio, Brown & Hartman, 2003;
Walumbwa, Morrison & Christensen, 2012). Ethical leadership is extremely important when team member interactions involve
trust, fairness and empowering behavior (Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009). When team members have sufcient trust in their
leaders, they are more willing to follow ethical procedures and take risks (Hoyt, Price & Poatsy, 2013). On the other hand, if followers perceive their leaders to be unethical, they are more likely to experience anxiety, pressure and depression in the workplace, and to exhibit counterproductive behavior such as cheating during problem-solving tasks, which results in reduced work
outcomes (Ariely, 2012; Detert, Trevio, Burris & Andiappan, 2007; Gino & Ariely, 2012; Hoyt et al., 2013). In the past decade,
studies conducted on organizations and management have focused on examining the role of ethical leadership and its impact
on followers' ethical conduct (such as OCB, ethical identity and ethical decision making) and unethical conduct (such as counterproductive behavior and deviant behavior) (Hiller, DeChurch, Murase & Doty, 2011). Yet, few studies have paid attention to the
impact of ethical leadership on R&D members' creativity, despite the fact that leadership is one of the most inuential predictors
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andrew132486@yahoo.com.tw (Y.-H. Hou).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.007
1048-9843/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Chen, A.S.-Y., & Hou, Y.-H., The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for innovation on
creativity: A moderated mediation examination, The Leadership Quarterly (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.007
A.S.-Y. Chen, Y.-H. Hou / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2015) xxxxxx
of employee creativity (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Volmer, Spurk & Niessen, 2012); thus, the rst goal of the present study is to
address this important yet relatively understudied issue.
Although connecting ethical leadership with followers' creativity may seem counter-intuitive, social learning theory (Bandura,
1977) indicates that individuals model their behavior on those whom they respect and trust. Ethical leaders speak out publicly
against inappropriate organizational actions and behaviors, and emphasize doing the right thing (van Gils, Van Quaquebeke,
van Knippenberg, van Dijke & De Cremer, in press). In addition, ethical leaders convey high moral standards to employees and
encourage their followers to voice opinions and suggestions not only on ethical matters, but also on other work-related processes
and work context (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). For example, during product development, R&D employees may face many
risks, difculties, conicts and even ethical dilemmas. The norms and behaviors demonstrated by ethical leaders may encourage
subordinates to voice their ideas and opinions regarding not only the ethical dilemmas they face but their work as well, such as
offering suggestions about products, services and processes. Hence, they may become more creative on the job. Given this perspective, this study uses social learning theory to explicate the underlying rationale for this prediction, noting that by modeling
an open dialog about ethical issues, ethical leaders promote voice behavior that extends to ethical issues as well as other
work-related issues. Thus, to the extent that our theory/ndings challenge conventional wisdom, we anticipate they will shed
light on the processes whereby ethical leaders foster creativity, while generating additional timely research into these
relationships.
In addition to examining the above relationships, this study investigates climates for innovation as the boundary condition for
voice behavior, i.e. the creativity relationship. Existing theories and research indicate that leadership and organizational climate
signicantly inuence individual creativity (e.g., George, 2007; Si & Wei, 2012; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013). Prior works
have emphasized that support for innovation is an important source of creativity (Scott & Bruce, 1994), but scholars have rarely
considered the interactive effects of leadership and organizational climate on creativity (Si & Wei, 2012); this relates to how leadership and teams within organizations are able to facilitate creativity (Nijstad & Levine, 2007; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013).
This gap is a substantial weak point in the literature because creativity originates and is subsequently developed by a team
into routine practice (Anderson & West, 1998). Thus, the relationship between voice behavior and creativity, as well as the indirect effect from ethical leadership to voice behavior to creativity may be stronger among employees operating within supportive
climates for high innovation.
The present research is intended to contribute to the existing literature in several ways. First, our research seeks to ll the
knowledge gap concerning the link between ethical leadership and creativity. Previous research has demonstrated that leadership
is one of the most inuential factors affecting employee creativity. This paper is designed to be one of the rst studies to consider
the link between ethical leadership and R&D creativity. Second, determining how voice helps employees perform more effectively
has received little empirical attention in voice-related literature (Walumbwa, Morrison & Christensen, 2012). The present study
uses social learning theory as the core theoretical focus and takes a step further to identify the mediating effect of voice behavior
in regard to the leadership-creativity link. The ndings could advance our understanding of the processes by which ethical leadership inuences creativity. Third, this study contributes to the literature by investigating how ethical leadership enhances
followers' creativity via voice behavior, which in turn accounts for the moderating effect of the climate for innovation. Finally,
our study adopts a cross-level design and uses a three-phase data collection which enables us to provide more robust and meaningful outcomes.
Literature review and hypotheses
In the last few years, ethics and integrity have received an increasing amount of attention in the leadership eld (Kalshoven,
Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2011). The ethical leadership attributes in corporate supervisors are as follows: care, trustworthiness,
honesty and fairness. That is, behavior that explicitly demonstrates ethical conduct, as well as fair and principled decisions, thereby communicating the importance of ethics to followers, rewarding positive ethical behavior and disciplining those who exhibit
unethical behavior (Jordan, Brown, Trevio & Finkelstein, 2013). It is primarily through their actions that ethical leaders seek
to inuence the behavior of their followers. Indeed, according to the denition of ethical leadership proposed by Brown et al.
(2005), the behavior of ethical leaders stimulates the ethical behavior of subordinates through communication and encouragement. It is dened as the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision making
(Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). Ethical leaders endeavor to transform the ethical behavior of their subordinates by communicating
ethical standards, establishing ethical behavioral models and controlling the ethical behavior of subordinates (Brown & Trevio,
2006; Trevio et al., 2003).
Ethical leadership and voice behavior
Drawing on social learning theory, we propose certain aspects of the moral person and moral manager explain the effects of
ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005). Social learning theory argues that people learn specic behaviors by observing a person
who is perceived as legitimate in his/her actions. Here, employees observe leaders and take their behavior as a reference
(Stouten, van Dijke, Mayer, De Cremer & Euwema, 2013). Specically, social learning theory illustrates how ethical leadership
shapes employee roles and elicits ethical behavior on their part (e.g., Ardichvili, Mitchell & Jondle, 2009; Avolio & Gardner,
2005; Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen & Lowe, 2009), as well as the transactional strategies by which leaders ensure that employees
engage in ethical behavior (Brown & Trevio, 2006). One of the central effects of ethical leadership is that these leaders provide
followers with voice (Brown et al., 2005), publicly opposing inappropriate organizational behavior and action, and emphasizing
appropriate courses of action. From a social learning perspective (Bandura, 1977), when leaders actively create fair workplaces,
they become role models to their subordinates (Brown et al., 2005) because communicating stringent ethical standards to
employees encourages them to voice their own ideas and opinions regarding not only ethics, but also methods for improving
work procedures and environments (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009).
The extant research shows that voice behavior is benecial in the workplace and for organizations (e.g., McClean, Burris &
Detert, 2013; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith & Kamdar, 2011). Voice behavior is dened as behavior presenting a constructive
challenge intended to improve a situation (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Voice is a challenge-oriented behavior which includes
expressing viewpoints inconsistent with the status quo and inuencing the work environment (Li & Sun, in press; Maynes &
Podsakoff, 2014). When ethical leaders convey high moral standards to employees, they encourage their followers to voice opinions and suggestions (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). The voice behavior of supervisors fosters a learning environment under
which organizational employees make fewer mistakes, and routine work and innovation are enhanced (Burris, 2012; Detert &
Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). Recent research points out that ethical leaders are strongly concerned about employee willingness to report relevant problems (e.g., Brown et al., 2005; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009;
Walumbwa et al., 2012), which is similar to the concept of voice proposed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Voice behavior is
exhibited in employees who discern existing or latent inappropriate or unethical actions and bravely express their opinions or
ideas for improvement when they perceive the encouragement demonstrated by ethical leaders. These concepts contribute to
the presentation of our rst hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. The perception of ethical leadership is positively related to voice behavior.
Voice behavior and creativity

As Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) note, the psychological safety level of a subordinate may be related to his/her willingness to speak up. According to the COR (Conservation of Resource) theory, people have both an innate and a learned drive to
create, foster, conserve and protect the quality and quantity of their resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002). In line with this theory,
the resources that people strive to attain, protect and preserve are considered valuable objectives, personal traits, conditions, or
abilities. COR theory may prove particularly useful in explaining how voice is related to creativity and implementation of new
ideas, and how engaging in voice might help employees receive higher evaluations in terms of creativity (Ng & Feldman,
2012). When individuals perceive the risks associated with voice behavior, they may still speak up because of their commitment
to defending their moral standards or values (Gentile, 2012). In addition, because voice behavior is an indicator of citizenship
behavior (LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002), employees can actively exhibit voice behavior in order to obtain positive feedback
and superior resulting evaluation from their supervisors and colleagues (Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea & Frey, 2007).
Creative behaviors involve risk because it is unknown how supervisors will react to and evaluate those related ideas and
activities (George & Zhou, 2007). The social learning perspective and related research suggest that role modeling is critical for subsequent innovation (Gu, Tang & Jiang, 2015; Riivari & Lms, 2014; Tu & Lu, 2013). Because the supervisor often has the most
power in a team and is ultimately responsible for evaluating its members, his or her role modeling constitutes the critical relational context within which members engage in creative activities in an R&D team. The supportive climate, in turn, enhances
collective creative endeavors and heightens team creativity (Gong et al., 2013).
Voice behavior also fosters strong creativity evaluations because employee voices prompt active, new methods of thinking.
Employees who exhibit voice behavior are typically evaluated as highly creative by their supervisors, particularly when the opinions they provide benet the organization. Although numerous scholars have indicated that not all active voice behavior generates
positive outcomes (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2012; Liu, Liao & Loi, 2012), continued managerial inability or unwillingness to respond
effectively to voice behavior can result in widely shared perceptions of futility among employees (Detert & Trevio, 2010).
Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis indicates that voice behavior is signicantly and positively correlated with self-rated creativity (.41) and other-rated creativity (.37) (Ng & Feldman, 2012). Therefore, we suggest that:
Hypothesis 2. Voice behavior is positively related to individual's creativity.
The mediating role of voice behavior

A previous study acknowledges the role of individual voice behavior as a mechanism linking contextual factors and creativity
(Zhou & George, 2001). We suggest that voice behavior plays a mediating role in the relationship between ethical leadership and
creativity. Recent studies on ethical leadership have indicated that ethical leaders who permit subordinates to participate in
decision-making processes typically seek out and listen to their ideas, which subsequently inuence the decision-making process
(Brown et al., 2005; Cropanzano & Walumbwa, 2010; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Ethical
leaders also establish favorable relationships with their subordinates regarding exclusive economic exchange agreements and social norms of reciprocity (Brown & Trevio 2006; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Based on the process and results of ethical
decision making, leaders establish individual ethical standards for their subordinates by guiding good behavior (consistent with
the standards) and deterring misconduct (that would violate the standards) (Trevio, Weaver & Reynolds, 2006; p. 958).
Because ethical leaders express their thoughts regarding inappropriate behavior in the organization, display their actions to
subordinates and reinforce the ethical value of their subordinates, subordinates are likely to imitate their leaders. As their values
gradually converge with those of their leaders, employees become increasingly comfortable speaking up and offering their
opinions on topics of concern (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes & Salvador, 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2012), thereby enhancing constructive forms of voice. Consequently, when they perceive ethical leadership, subordinates propose ideas and plans,
and encourage their colleagues to voice their opinions.
Considerable research has indicated that ethical leadership is benecial to organizations because it positively inuences employee behavior (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog & Folger, 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2012). Ethical
leadership facilitates employee voice behavior, thereby enhancing employee creativity. Because ethical leaders convey high moral
standards to employees, they encourage their followers to voice opinions and suggestions, not only about ethical matters but also
about other work-related processes and work context (Avey, Wernsing & Palanski, 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2012; Walumbwa &
Schaubroeck, 2009). According to previous studies, voice behavior covertly increases employee creativity, transforming creativity
into organizational or departmental procedure (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Walumbwa et al., 2012).
In addition, when individual ethical values are consistent with those in the workplace, voice behavior inuences individual
perceptions related to personal congruence and self-concordance (Avey et al., 2012; Bono & Judge, 2003). The opinions and
ideas expressed by employees may thus be consistent with their beliefs and values. MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Podsakoff
(2011) propose that employee voice behavior enhances job outcomes when employees are guided by ethical leadership. Perceptions of ethical leadership also inuence employee creativity through individual intrinsic motivation, a mechanism that is consonant with voice behavior (Tu & Lu, 2013). In addition, learning and feedback on mistakes are emphasized during the learning
process, and the feedback process is considered as a demonstration of problem-solving skills and creativity (Edmondson, 2003).
This study proposes that employees are stimulated by the fairness and honesty of ethical leaders, and so learn to provide ideas
and plans through voice behavior, a process which enhances their creativity. We thus hypothesize that voice behavior is positively
related to employee creativity, and that it mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and employee creativity. Thus, we
present the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. The positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee creativity is mediated by voice behavior.
The moderating role of a climate for innovation

Considerable research demonstrates that ethical leadership should be effective in various situations within an organization;
certain situational variables are able to strengthen the relationship between ethical leadership and employee behavior (Tu &
Lu, 2013; Shin, 2012). As a dynamic social process, leadership within organizations does not take place in a vacuum; it develops
within the working environment where leader behaviors need to t circumstances in order to be effective (Charbonnier-Voirin,
Akremi & Vandenberghe, 2010; Porter & McLaughlin, 2006). Several scholars stress that the success of a team's or individual's creativity hinges on team scenarios or environments (e.g., Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996; Somech & Drach-Zahavy,
2013). Team innovation not only requires team members to explore and develop novel and useful ideas, but also requires that
each member realize these creative ideas.
According to Amabile et al.'s (1996) model, the perceived work environment inuences employees' creative work carried out
in organizations. For instance, researchers have shown that leader support given to subordinates, proposed to be a key feature of
the work environment for creativity, is positively related to the creativity of subordinates (Amabile, 1998; Amabile, Schatzel,
Moneta & Kramer, 2004). Among the latent variables that modulate leadership behavior, organizational climates for innovation
have been extensively explored (Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg & Boerner, 2008; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013). An organizational
climate is dened as a set of shared perceptions regarding the policies, practices, and procedures that convey messages regarding
what is rewarded, supported, and valued in an organization (Charbonnier-Voirin et al., 2010, p. 705). The Team Climate Inventory developed by Anderson and West (1998) is considered a scale capable of accurately measuring the climate within a group or
team. According to this scale, the four dimensions of a climate for team innovation are summarized as vision, support innovation,
task orientation and participative safety; meta-analyses have indicated that these are effective predictors or facilitators of individual or team creativity (Hlsheger, Anderson & Salgado, 2009).
Previous theories and studies have shown that the relationship between leadership and voice behavior is based on the direct
inuence that immediate supervisors exert on their subordinates (Detert & Trevio, 2010). Leaders generate opportunities for
followers' voice behavior by providing formal and informal voice behaviors, and shape the cognitive factors that drive the decision
to speak up (Ashford, Sutcliffe & Christianson, 2009). Different leadership styles may have different effects on voice behavior, and
employees may choose different strategies when aiming at different problems (Liu, Zhu & Yang, 2010). In an environment that
facilitates effective employee voice behavior, a positive climate is required for actualizing creativity. Specically, a climate for innovation is a team-level concept that involves sharing a team's superior innovation norms, which facilitates innovation and reects a favorable task level (Anderson & West, 1998; West, 1990). Although team climates for innovation are not necessarily
correlated with the amount of individual creativity, these climates are highly likely to be correlated with the quality of individual
creativity (Burningham & West, 1995). Therefore, we assert that a climate for innovation moderates the relationship between
employee voice behavior and creativity because a favorable climate increases the number of novel ideas that are generated and
actualized by team members (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008).
A climate for innovation, as reected in norms and practices, encourages employees to be exible, expressive and willing to
learn. In a highly creative team climate, team members tend to offer their opinions regarding improvements and modications,
carefully selecting the optimal method of realizing such changes and discarding useless ideas (West, 1990). Moreover, employees
in a highly creative climate exert a concerted effort to accomplish their goals and maximize their abilities (West & Farr, 1990).
They strive to overcome challenges that occur when actualizing creative ideas into substantially improved products, procedures
and scientic knowledge. In other words, if a team lacks a climate for innovation, voice behavior produces only ideas without
transforming high-quality ideas into actual creative outcomes.
Employees are willing to speak up because they perceive that the ethical leadership encourages them through social learning;
how they react to voice behavior depends on the climate for innovation. In such circumstances, employees are likely to transform
ideas into creative outcomes because they are stimulated by a strong climate for innovation. In addition, when employees perceive ethical leadership, they emulate their leaders in terms of voicing opinions and ideas; converting these ideas into creative
outcomes requires a climate for innovation. In combination, the relationships predicted in Hypotheses 1 to 3 lead to a nal
step in our conceptual analysis: voice behavior mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and employee creativity,
and the mediated effect is stronger when the climate for innovation is strong.
Hypothesis 4. Ethical leadership inuences employee creativity through its relationship with voice behavior; and the indirect
effect will be stronger when the climate for innovation is strong rather than weak.
Combining Hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4, we propose a moderated mediation model, shown in Fig. 1, to test the relationship
between followers' perceptions of ethical leadership and creativity; the model incorporates voice behavior as a mediator and
climate for innovation as a moderator.
Methods
Sample and procedure
The respondents in our study are employees of a government R&D institution in Taiwan. Our target participants include roughly
8700 ofcers/employees spread among various functional divisions; they propose about 70% of their institutions' new products and
process innovations. In terms of the survey personnel, six survey coordinators and representative employees of the organization
planned for, and assisted in, collecting data in their respective units. Using the employee ID lists provided by HR departments,
coordinators coded the questionnaires for matched supervisor and employee surveys. The coordinators then distributed the questionnaires in coded self-addressed envelopes at three different time periods to employees in R&D teams, who were scientists. A
cover letter explained the survey process, assured complete condentiality and instructed participants to seal their completed survey
questionnaires in the return envelopes.
We conducted employee surveys in three phases. In phase 1, we collected data on perceptions of ethical leadership. We
attached a cover letter to explain the purpose of our study and to emphasize the voluntary nature of the research. In order
to ensure condentiality, we asked each respondent to place his/her completed questionnaire into a sealed envelope to be
collected by one of the researchers. Data were collected from 380 employees from 70 teams; 315 employees from 59 teams
returned questionnaires, resulting in response rates of 82.9% at the individual level and 84.2% at the team level. Three months
later, in Phase 2, we asked the 315 respondents to evaluate their voice behavior and climate for innovation, and received 291
evaluations from 58 teams, constituting a response rates of 92.4% at the individual level and 98% at the team level. Three
months later, in Phase 3, the HR department provided us with data on the creativity rewards that the 291 employees had
received during the survey period. The average team size was 7.7 members (ranging from 3 to 15). In this study, the nal sample of 291 employees on 58 teams had an average number of 5.01 people on each team (s.d. = 1.62), an average tenure of
21.3 years (s.d. = 2.27), and an average age of 51.31 years (s.d. = 6.22); the majority were male (81%) and 59% had received
a Master's degree or above.
Fig. 1. Hypothesized model of the study.
Measures
We used a six-point scale ranging from 1, strongly disagree, to 6, strongly agree, throughout the questionnaire. The questionnaires were originally constructed in English but were translated into traditional Chinese. We used a standard translation and
back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980) to ensure the reliability and validity of the research instrument.
Ethical leadership
We measured employees' perceptions of ethical leadership using Brown et al.'s (2005) 10-item scale. A sample item is my
team leader conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner.
Ethical leadership has been treated as either an individual or a team-level construct in past studies (e.g., Mayer, Aquino,
Greenbaum & Kuenzi, 2012). In our study, since multiple subordinates rated the same supervisor within their team, we examined
whether ethical leadership could be conceptualized and aggregated at the team level. In order to justify the appropriateness of the
data aggregation, we calculated the inter-rater agreement (rwg) and the intra-class correlations (ICCs) for team level ethical leadership (Bliese, 2000; James, Demaree & Wolf, 1984). The results showed that the average of rwg values was .51, with individual rwg
values ranging from .00 to .78, suggesting a low degree of inter-rater agreement on ethical leadership within the work teams.
Moreover, we calculated the ICCs: ICC(1) = .07 and ICC(2) = .29; the F value for ANOVA was not signicant in terms of
between-unit variances for ethical leadership (F[57, 233] = 1.45, p N .05). As above, we decided to conceptualize ethical leadership as an individual-level variable, based on inter-rater agreement values being relatively low and the intra-class correlations
value falling below the conventionally acceptable level (Bliese, 2000). As noted above, we were interested in understanding
how individual employees respond to their leader's behavior.
Employee voice behavior
We measured employee voice behavior using Van Dyne and LePine's (1998) six-item voice scale. A sample item is I communicate my opinions about work issues to others even if my opinion is different and others disagree with me.
Climate for innovation
A version of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) (Anderson & West, 1998) and a short version of team climate inventory developed
by Kivimaki and Elovainio (1999) were used to assess climate for innovation. The questionnaire (14 items) comprises four subscales:
participative safety (4 items), support for innovation (3 items), vision (4 items) and task orientation (3 items). A sample item is
Search for new ways of looking at problems.
Following the recommendation of Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2013), we decided that a series of conrmatory factor analyses
should be conducted on all the climate for innovation items in order to determine the appropriateness of proceeding with the
four separate subscales. As shown in Table 1, treating climate for innovation as one construct may be more tting than treating
it as a two-, three-, or four-dimensional construct.
Creativity
Supervisors' subjective ratings of subordinates' creativity may be biased due to a variety of intentional and inadvertent factors,
such as demographic characteristics, supervisory liking and the halo effect (Landy & Farr, 1980; Liao, Liu & Loi, 2010). Accordingly,
researchers have gradually increased the use of more objective measures for creativity. Following suggestions by Liao et al. (2010),
this study adopted an objective measure of creativity (monetary incentives). Some authors argue that monetary rewards boost
creativity because they have informational value and recognize individuals' personal competencies (Eisenberger, 1992; Shalley,
Zhou & Oldham, 2004). The institutional committee meets quarterly to assess employee technicians' creativity, and then awards
them with various levels of reward strictly on the basis of the evaluation results. In keeping with this development, after three
months, we obtained the data on employees' creativity bonuses during this year's survey period directly from HR department
and used them as the measure for the employees' creativity, ranging from 1000 to 12,000 NT dollars. Thus, this measurement
approach is in line with the creativity measures used by previous studies which also focus on quantity and quality of ideas or
suggestions of employees (e.g., Amabile & Conti, 1999; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis & Strange, 2002; Vessey, Barrett, Mumford,
Johnson & Litwiller, 2014).
Table 1
Alternative model test results for climate for innovation.
Model
df
1-Factor (expected model)

2-Factor (F1 + F2 + F3 merged)
3-Factor (F1 + F2 merged)
4-Factor
187.57
458.13
713.22
994.07
71
75
76
77
TLI
CFI
RMSEA
270.56
525.65
806.50
.94
.82
.71
.59
.96
.87
.76
.65
.075
.133
.170
.201
Notes: The 2 difference was compared with the value of the 1-factor model (our proposed model).
TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
The four dimensions of climate for innovation are: F1: participative safety; F2: support for innovation; F3: vision; F4: task orientation.
p b .01 (two tailed tests).
The sample for the current study was composed of R&D scientists working in the R&D department of an institute which is in
charge of developing novel defense-related science and technology in Taiwan. To encourage R&D scientists to propose creative
ideas and processes to enhance the company's productivity and quality of products, the institution set up a creativity bonus
scheme system in addition to employees' regular salary and benets; only 5 to 20% of their combined income comes from
these creativity rewards.
In order to be eligible for the creativity bonus, each member of the R&D department needs to provide a monthly written report
to the HR department. The report is about their research publications, innovative suggestions or problem solving related to the
production process, and patent announcements on new product development. At the end of each month, the creativity evaluation
committee consisting of senior R&D managers evaluates each employee's report. Then the institution awards individual for their
creativity based on the results of assessment.
Due to legal restrictions (the Personal Information Protection Act), the HR department could not provide us with detailed
information on the exact amount of money the employees received. Therefore, the data was transformed into an interval scale
by the HR department. The method of using monetary rewards as the measurement of creativity has been adopted by a number
of related studies, in which rewards offered for new ideas did facilitate creativity (Friedman, 2009; Liao et al., 2010; Liu, Wang &
Wayne, 2015). Research reports, patent announcements and ideas proposed during suggestion programs have been used to
operationalize employees' creativity (e.g., Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Taggar, 2001). Hence, the data for employees' creativity rewards and frequency scores were rated on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = 10004000 dollars, 2 = 40016000 dollars, 3 = 60018000
dollars, 4 = 800110,000 dollars, 5 = 10,00112,000 dollars (in New Taiwan Dollars).
Control variables
We also included individual demographic characteristics in the analysis because these variables may affect the relationships of
interest (e.g., Debus Probst, Knig & Kleinmann, 2012; Zhou & George, 2001). We added gender, tenure and education as control
variables. However, gender and tenure controls were not signicantly related to the dependent variable. Since we felt that including nonsignicant control variables would erode degrees of freedom (Atinc, Simmering & Kroll, 2012), we nally did not control
for these two variables. We controlled for the education variable as it had been found to be signicantly related to creativity.
Analytical approach
Employees in our sample were grouped within their branches, each headed by a manager. In order to appropriately model this
nested nature, we used multilevel data modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). We used Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) version 6.06 with a restricted maximum likelihood estimation method for the analysis. In addition, HLM is effective for modeling
cross-level interaction effects between group-level predictors and individual-level independent variables on outcome variables
(Hofmann, Morgeson & Gerras, 2003). We calculated a hierarchical regression equation for each individual at Level 1. The intercept and slope scores from Level 1 were used as dependent variables at Level 2. A signicant parameter estimate for a Level 1
predictor indicates an individual level effect, and a signicant parameter estimate for a Level 2 predictor of the Level 1 intercepts
and slopes indicates a group-level effect. Following convention, we used group-mean centering (Enders & Toghi, 2007; Hofmann
& Gavin, 1998).
In our study, the variable climate for innovation refers to aggregates of individual responses to the team level of analysis.
Aggregation is justied by theoretical as well as empirical arguments (Rousseau, 1985), and was a critical requirement to demonstrate high within-team agreement, in order to justify using the team average as an indicator of a team-level variable (James et al.,
1984). In order to empirically justify aggregating individual scores to the group, we calculated within-group agreement, intra-class
correlations (ICC1) and the reliability of the means (ICC2) (Bliese, 2000).
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among study variables.
Variables
a
1. Education
2. Ethical leadership
3. Voice behavior
4. Creativity
5. Climate for innovation
6. Vision
7. Participative safety
8. Task orientation
9. Support for innovation
Mean
SD
3.35
4.10
4.52
3.01
4.21
4.33
4.21
4.15
4.15
1.10
1.15
1.14
1.00
.67
.79
.74
.74
.75
.04
.11
.08
.02
.03
.00
.01
.03
(.96)
.48
.11
(.94)
.16
.01
.03
.01
.02
.01
.01
.04
.03
.04
.02
.02
.06
.01
.03
.01
(.94)
.90
.92
.86
.86
(.88)
.79
.65
.65
(.86)
.72
.71
(.80)
.75
(.83)
N = 291. Internal consistency reliabilities appear in parentheses along diagonal.

Except creativity was measured by 5-point Likert scale, all variables were measured based on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree).
p b .05.
p b .01.
a
Education was coded: 1 = high school, 2 = college degree, 3 = university degree, 4 = graduate degree, 5 = doctor degree.
The climate for innovation scale exceeded this criterion (the average rwg score was .90, ranging from .76 to .99). We also
obtained the value of .33 for ICC 1 and .71 for ICC 2. Given that the inter-rater agreement value and intra-class correlations
value reached acceptable levels (Bliese, 2000), we concluded that aggregation was justied for the climate for innovation variable.
Finally, we followed a procedure to analyze conditional indirect effects. We used Hayes' (2012) PROCESS program in order to
estimate the equations presented earlier, and obtained bias-corrected bootstrapped condence intervals for the conditional indirect effect. Specically, the PROCESS program allowed us to test our mediated moderation by evaluating the indirect effect of the
ethical leadership and climate for innovation on creativity, mediated through the voice behavior. We tested the hypothesized
conditional process modeling (moderated indirect effect, H4). We also bootstrapped with 5000 iterations in order to construct
bias-corrected condence intervals for the signicance tests of the indirect effects.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations are provided in Table 2. Reliabilities reported on the diagonal show strong
internal consistency across all measures. The patterns of correlations are consistent with both theory and previous research.
Ethical leadership was positively related to employees' voice behavior and creativity. Furthermore, employees' voice behavior
was positively related to creativity. The reliabilities of our variables are all above .80, and their correlation results are as expected.
Conrmatory factor analyses
Following Anderson and Gerbing's (1988) recommendation, we examined the construct validity of the variables before testing
the hypotheses. We conducted a series of conrmatory factor analyses (CFA) using AMOS 18.0 to examine the distinctiveness of
our study variables based on chi-square statistics and t indices of RMSEA, CFI and TLI (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). As shown in
Table 3, the t indices support that the hypothesized 4-factor model of ethical leadership, voice behavior, creativity and climate
for innovation, 2 = 745.60, df = 431; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .96 and TLI = .95, yielded a better t to the data than the threefactor, two-factor and one-factor models. These CFA results also provide support for the distinctiveness of the four study variables
for subsequent analyses.
Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1 proposed that perceptions of ethical leadership would be positively related to employees' voice behavior. The
HLM results are presented in Table 4. As shown in Model 2 of Table 4, after we controlled for the control variable, we found
that ethical leadership was signicantly and positively related to employees' voice behavior ( = .45, p b .001). Thus,
Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Next, we tested Hypotheses 2 and 3, where we expected to rst nd a primary effect of voice behavior on individual creativity
and, second, that voice behavior would mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and individual creativity. In order to
further probe the role of the mediator, we conducted the product of coefcient tests, using the PRODCLIN program (MacKinnon,
Fritz, Williams & Lockwood, 2007; Toghi & MacKinnon, 2011). PRODCLIN produces asymmetric condence intervals for the indirect effect, yielding more accurate Type I error rates and greater power when compared with other frequently used methods.
We used bootstrap condence intervals to test our mediation hypotheses because they are bias-corrected. As hypothesized, the
results showed that a signicant indirect effect exists between ethical leadership and creativity in the predicted direction
( = .16, p b .001; see Model 2). A one-tailed Sobel test supported the signicance of this indirect effect (z = 3.61, p b .001),
as did the bootstrap results, showing that a 95% bias corrected condence interval from .04 to .13 did not contain zero. Hence,
Hypotheses 2 and 3 received support, as voice behavior not only had a direct impact on individual creativity, but also mediated
the relationship between ethical leadership and individual creativity.
Although not hypothesized, Model 7 of Table 4 tests whether climate for innovation moderates the positive relationship
between voice behavior and creativity. The interaction term was signicant ( = .18, p b .05) and explained an additional 9%
of the variance in creativity. To demonstrate the pattern of interaction, we followed the procedures of Aiken and West (1991)
Table 3
Alternative model test results for the study variables.
Model
df
TLI
CFI
RMSEA
4-Factor (expected model)

3-Factor (EL & VB merged)
2-Factor (EL, VB and CI merged)
1-Factor (all items load on a single factor)
745.60
1815.31
2585.72
5582.29
431
433
437
440
1069.71
1840.12
4836.69
.95
.79
.67
.27
.96
.80
.69
.21
.05
.11
.13
.20
Notes: The 2 difference was compared with the value of the four-factor model (our proposed model).
EL = Ethical Leadership; VB = Voice behavior; CI = Climate for Innovation.
p b .01 (two tailed tests).
Table 4
Summary of multilevel mediated moderation model.
Variables
Intercept
Controls
Education
Independent variable
Individual level: EL
Mediator
Individual level: VB
Moderator
Team level: CI
Cross-level interaction
VB CI
EL CI
R2
R2
Voice behavior creativity

Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
4.51
4.53
3.00
2.99
3.00
2.99
2.99
.13
.13
.12
.13
.12
.45
.11
.16
.17
.22
.02
.11
.11
.13
.11
.03
.15
.12
.02
.03
.05
.03
.08
.13
.21
.14
.18
.09
.30
R values indicate percentage of the total variance in the dependent variable accounted for by the model. R2 values indicate percentage of the total variance in the
dependent variable accounted for by all the variables in the model together.
EL = ethical leadership; VB = voice behavior; CI = climate for Innovation.
p b .05.
p b .01.
p b .001.
and plotted the signicant interaction effect. As shown in Fig. 2, the positive relationship between voice behavior and individual
creativity is relatively stronger when climate for innovation was high as opposed to when it was low.
Finally, we tested the moderated indirect effects of a climate for innovation. Table 5 summarizes the results of these calculations. The indirect path from ethical leadership to creativity varied signicantly at both the high and low values. When the climate
for innovation was stronger, ethical leadership had an indirect effect on creativity (b = .03, boot SE = .01, 95% bias-corrected
CI = [.02, .08]) and a 95% bias-corrected condence interval around the bootstrapped indirect effect, which did not contain
zero. When the climate for innovation was weaker, ethical leadership did not have an indirect effect on creativity (b = .04,
boot SE = .03, 95% bias-corrected CI = [.02, .07]). Consequently, Hypotheses 4 was supported.
Discussion
This study explored the relationship between ethical leadership and creativity. As predicted, a strong positive relationship exists between these two factors. When subordinates perceived exceptional ethical behavior among their leaders, their creativity
was enhanced through social learning. The results also revealed that voice behavior mediated the relationship between ethical
leadership and creativity, that a climate for innovation moderated the relationship between voice behavior and creativity, and
that the indirect effect of ethical leadership on creativity (via voice behavior) was stronger when a climate for innovation was
strong rather than weak, such that it plays a critical moderating role in this relationship.
Fig. 2. Interaction effect between ethical leadership and climate for innovation on creativity.
10
Table 5
Conditional indirect effect(s) of ethical leadership on creativity at values of climate for innovation.
Path
Moderator
Indirect effects
Boot SE
Boot LLCI
Boot ULCI
Simple path for high climate for innovation

Simple path for low climate for innovation
.23
.23
.03
.04
.01
.03
.02
.02
.08
.07
95% bias-correlated CI.
Theoretical and practical implications

This study provides crucial theoretical contributions to the literature regarding the relationship between ethical leadership and
creativity. Since few studies have investigated the relationship between ethical leadership and individual creativity within R&D
teams, our primary contribution lies in identifying the role of voice behavior in the relationship between ethical leadership and
creativity. We determined that ethical leadership positively inuences employee voice behavior, which corresponds with the results of recent studies (e.g., Avey et al., 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2012), and that voice behavior positively inuences employees'
creativity.
Brown et al. (e.g., Brown & Trevio, 2006; Brown et al., 2005) indicate that social learning theory is a crucial mechanism by
which ethical leaders inuence subordinates. Along this line, this study examined key theoretical contributions. Unlike social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Brown et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 2009) that identies the inuence of ethical leadership as a process
of social exchange, we focused on how ethical leadership could enhance employees' creativity, whereby leaders encourage employees to embrace ethical behavior altruistically, rather than merely seeking external rewards. Thus, we determined that a social
learning model helps to explain how ethical leadership inuences employees' creativity. In practicing ethical leadership, leaders
construct and demonstrate ethical models derived from their own moral and altruistic motives; subordinates then acquire ethical
motives via social learning. By using social learning theory (i.e., through their own actions and the value of voicing), leaders
encourage subordinates to imitate them (Mayer et al., 2009), thereby generating congruent values among supervisors and subordinates. Employees then feel comfortable voicing suggestions regarding their concerns; this in turn leads to enhanced creativity. In
a work environment governed by ethical leadership, employees not only readily voice suggestions to their supervisors, but also
tend to interact with other team members when expressing their ideas and opinions (e.g., Piccolo et al., 2010; Walumbwa,
Mayer, Wang, Wang, Workman & Christensen, 2010; Tu & Lu, 2013). Through this mechanism, employees demonstrate elevated
levels of creativity.
Furthermore, most discussions regarding ethical leadership have focused on how ethical leaders establish ethical models that
discourage unethical behavior among subordinates and reinforce ethical behavior through constant communication or management (Brown & Trevio, 2006; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Similarly, our ndings regarding social learning theory suggest
that individuals learn appropriate behaviors through a role-modeling process, i.e. by observing the behavior of ethical leaders. As
ethical leaders create a fair and honest environment that engenders virtuous resources, employees become willing to voice their
suggestions for attaining and preserving these resources. Consequently, employees feel able to speak up without fear, and propose
novel ideas, thereby improving work procedures and resolving potential problems. In this manner, R&D employees are encouraged to enhance their creativity.
This study contributes to the theoretical research on ethical leadership by exploring the climate for innovation. This research
accentuates the value of incorporating potential moderators and mediators into a single theoretical framework in order to help
disentangle the complexity and contribute to a better understanding of ethical leadership. In such an environment, employees
are encouraged to acquire additional resources from their ethical leaders (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012), and convert these resources
into voice behavior within the organization. This behavior is transmitted among organizational employees, generating a favorable
climate for innovation and positive work behavior. Moreover, perceptual congruence among employees in highly innovative
climates is likely to elicit behavioral contagion, transforming specic voice behavior into more widespread creativity. Thus, a
favorable climate for innovation tends to mobilize employees' collective endeavors towards exercising positive work behavior.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Like all research, there are certain limitations to our study. First, the sample for this study was sourced from a single organization,
which could result in an unfavorable inuence on the external validity of our conclusions and raise questions about generalizability.
Thus, the use of various types of samples would be a preferable alternative for future studies. Second, most of the study variables
(e.g., ethical leadership, voice behavior and climate for innovation) were obtained from the same source (i.e., employees), which
may have introduced a common method bias. However, we did conduct a three-phase data collection process, and ethical leadership
and voice behavior were examined during different phases of collection, which reduces the threat of common method variance
(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). Furthermore, the CFA results provide a compelling case for the empirical distinctiveness of the variables used in this study, which should mitigate concerns about common method variance. Future studies should also
consider multiple sources of data, such as leaders' self-assessments of ethical leadership.
A third potential limitation relates to how we operationalized employee creativity. Given the importance of reliable in-role
performance for organizations, we decided to focus on how ethical leadership affects this outcome. We believe, however, that
it would be fruitful for future studies to examine the effects of ethical leadership on broader and more multi-dimensional
11
measures of creativity. Future research could consider collecting data from multiple methods, such as patent announcements, and
invention disclosure forms, in order to examine which ideas proposed during suggestion programs were used to operationalize
employees' creativity (e.g., Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Taggar, 2001).
Finally, we did not control for other forms of related leadership theories. Future research could benet by controlling for
other styles and processes of leadership that have been found to positively relate to ethical leadership, such as procedural justice
(Walumbwa et al., 2010), in order to examine whether ethical leadership explains the additional unique variance (e.g., idealized
inuence, interpersonal justice and informational justice; see Mayer et al., 2012), and thereby become more condent regarding
the conceptual distinctiveness of the ethical leadership construct. In addition, recent studies indicate that ethical leadership
could inuence individual job attitudes and behaviors by shaping the group climate and work context (Tu & Lu, 2013). We
believe that ethical leadership implements a climate for innovation. Future studies could also examine the effect of ethical leadership on climate for innovation.
Practical implications
In addition to the theoretical contributions mentioned above, this research yields several practical implications. For example,
because perceptions of ethical leadership improve creativity in the work environment, employers can encourage employees to
provide work-related suggestions and opinions, thereby fostering employee empowerment and job enrichment, and ultimately
incorporating novel ideas into innovation. Ethics should also be emphasized during recruitment and promotion processes; leaders
should establish ethical norms and encourage employees to exhibit ethical behavior.
Furthermore, our ndings highlight the substantial inuence that voice behavior exerts on creativity. Employees who are willing to provide suggestions and opinions are likely to improve the creativity of organizational operations. Therefore, leaders of R&D
teams should establish an ethical model that motivates and supports employees to propose suggestions, thereby cultivating a
favorable climate for innovation in which the proposed opinions are actualized into creativity. In addition, leaders are able to
facilitate the transformation of the motivations of subordinates into action by offering incentives. Senior managers can adopt
ethical leadership, and inuence mid-level and front-line supervisors to do the same, thereby generating a fair and sincere leadership model by which employees are able to enhance their creativity.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Journal editor (Dr. W. Gardner) and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76, 7787.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630640.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 11541184.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 532.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423.
Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI). Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 235258.
Ardichvili, A., Mitchell, J. A., & Jondle, D. (2009). Characteristics of ethical business cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 445451.
Ariely, D. (2012). The (honest) truth about dishonesty: How we lie to everyoneespecially ourselves. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In M. S. Edwards, & J.
Greenberg (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175201). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Atinc, G., Simmering, M. J., & Kroll, M. J. (2012). Control variable use and peporting in macro and micro management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15,
5774.
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leadermember exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 264275.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. (2012). Exploring the process of ethical leadership: the mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership.
Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 2134.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315338.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multi-level theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46,
554571.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triadis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. 2.
(pp. 349444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, M. E., & Trevio, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595616.
Brown, M. E., Trevio, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117134.
Burningham, C., & West, M. A. (1995). Individual, climate, and group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Research, 26, 106117.
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 851875.
Charbonnier-Voirin, A., Akremi, A. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2010). A multilevel model of transformational leadership and adaptive performance and the moderating
role of climate for innovation. Group & Organization Management, 35, 699726.
Cropanzano, R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2010). Moral leadership: A short primer on competing perspectives. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 2152). New York: Routledge.
12
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness
and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297311.
Debus, M. E., Probst, T. M., Knig, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Catch me if I fall! Enacted uncertainty avoidance and the social safety net as country-level moderators in
the job insecurityjob attitudes link. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 690698.
Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2009). Empowerment and leader fairness and integrity: Studying ethical leader behavior. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 18, 199230.
Detert, J., & Trevio, L. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21, 249270.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869884.
Detert, J. R., Trevio, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unitlevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 9931005.
Edmondson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40,
14191452.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 14381446.
Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99, 248267.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121138.
Friedman, R. S. (2009). Reinvestigating the effects of promised reward on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 258264.
Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C., & Frey, L. (2007). An exploratory examination of voice behavior from an impression management perspective. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 19, 134151.
Gentile, M. C. (2012). The Giving voice to values curriculum. (http://www.babson.edu/faculty/teaching-learning/gvv/Pages/home.aspx. Accessed 20 Jan 2013).
George, J. M. (2007). Chapter 9: Creativity in organization. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439477.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605622.
(in press). van Gils, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2015e). Ethical leadership and follower organizational deviance: The
moderating role of follower moral attentiveness. The Leadership Quarterly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.005.
Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 445459.
Gong, Y., Kim, T. -Y., Zhu, J., & Lee, D. R. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56,
827851.
Gu, Q., Tang, T. L., & Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leadermember exchange (LMX)
in the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 513529.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37, 11371177.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44, 513524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307324.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Theoretical and methodological implications for organizational science.
Journal of Management, 24, 623641.
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between LMX and content specific citizenship: safety climate as an
exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170178.
Hoyt, C. L., Price, T. L., & Poatsy, L. (2013). The social role theory of unethical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 712723.
Hlsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 11281145.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group inter-rater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
8598.
Jordan, J., Brown, M. E., Trevio, L. K., & Finkelstein, S. (2013). Someone to look up to: Executive-follower ethical reasoning and perceptions of ethical leadership.
Journal of Management, 39, 660682.
Kalshoven, K., & Boon, C. T. (2012). Ethical leadership, employee well-being and helping: The moderating role of human resource management. Journal of Personnel
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The
Leadership Quarterly, 22, 5169.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744764.
Kivimaki, M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A short version of team climate inventory: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72107.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853868.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 5265.
(in press). Li, Y., & Sun, J. M. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. The Leadership Quarterly. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.001.
Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 10901109.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 55, 11871212.
Liu, D., Wang, S., & Wayne, S. J. (2015). Is being a good learner enough? An examination of the interplay between learning goal orientation and impression management tactics on creativity. Personnel Psychology, 68, 109142.
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
21, 189202.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Do challengeoriented behaviors really have an impact on the organization's bottom line? Personnel Psychology, 64, 559592.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 384389.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151171.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 108, 113.
Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 87112.
McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2013). When does voice to exit? It depends on leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 525548.
Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group voice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 183191.
13
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,
705750.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33,
216234.
Nijstad, B. A., & Levine, J. M. (2007). Group creativity and the stages of creative group problem solving. In M. Hewstone, H. A. W. Schut, J. B. F. de Wit, K. van den Bos, &
M. S. Stroebe (Eds.), The scope of social psychology: Theory and applications (pp. 159172). New York: Psychology Press.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607634.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31, 259278.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. C., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Porter, L. W., & McLaughlin, G. B. (2006). Leadership and the organizational context: like the weather? The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 559576.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Riivari, E., & Lms, A. (2014). Does it pay to be ethical? Examining the relationship between organisations' ethical culture and innovativeness. Journal of Business
Ethics, 124, 117.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 137.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
580607.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of
Management, 30, 933958.
Shin, Y. (2012). CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and collective organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 299312.
Si, S., & Wei, F. (2012). Transformational and transactional leaderships, empowerment climate, and innovation performance: A multilevel analysis in the Chinese context. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 299320.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of
Management, 39, 684708.
Stouten, J., van Dijke, M., Mayer, D. M., De Cremer, D., & Euwema, M. C. (2013). Can a leader be seen as too ethical? The curvilinear effects of ethical leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24, 680695.
Taggar, S. (2001). Group composition, creative synergy and group performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 261284.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: the effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of
Management Journal, 51, 11891203.
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692700.
Trevio, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56, 537.
Trevio, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951990.
Tu, Y., & Lu, X. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees' innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116,
441455.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108119.
Vessey, W. B., Barrett, J. D., Mumford, M. D., Johnson, G., & Litwiller, B. (2014). Leadership of highly creative people in highly creative fields: A historiometric study of
scientific leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 672691.
Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leadermember exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 456465.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological
safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 12751286.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2010). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader
member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 204213.
Walumbwa, F. O., Morrison, E. W., & Christensen, A. L. (2012). Ethical leadership and group in-role performance: The mediating roles of group conscientiousness and
group voice. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 953964.
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West, & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational
strategies (pp. 309333). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West, & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies
(pp. 313). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682696.

The Leadership Quarterly: Angela Shin-Yih Chen, Yu-Hsiang Hou

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Leadership Quarterly: Angela Shin-Yih Chen, Yu-Hsiang Hou

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEAQUA-01098; No of Pages 13

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for

Voice behavior and creativity

The mediating role of voice behavior

The moderating role of a climate for innovation

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model of the study.

1-Factor (expected model)

N = 291. Internal consistency reliabilities appear in parentheses along diagonal.

4-Factor (expected model)

Voice behavior creativity

Simple path for high climate for innovation

95% bias-correlated CI.

Theoretical and practical implications

You might also like